View Poll Results: Who Will Win? That is, in possession of the land?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Israel

    3 30.00%
  • The Palestinians

    1 10.00%
  • Two States

    4 40.00%
  • Neither, some other State or people rule.

    0 0%
  • Neither, mutual destruction.

    1 10.00%
  • One State, two peoples

    1 10.00%
  • One State, one people (intermarriage)

    0 0%
Results 1 to 20 of 535

Thread: War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Stratiotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Missouri
    Posts
    94

    Default

    It is a tough spot for Iran indeed.... Perhaps they thought that not signing would be considered tantamount to reveling a secret weapons program and so they chose to sign in order to mislead - deception being a good move of political strategy perhaps. After all, is it ever wise to reveal to potential enemies what you are NOT going to do?

    I think that expecting anyone to remain without such weapons indefinitely is silly. Every nation is going to want them - some will sign treaties to imply they don't but its only a matter of time. Eventually, they're going to get them. So, as you say, we have to figure out how to live with that.
    Mark
    Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton

  2. #2
    DDilegge
    Guest

    Default Law is the Law?

    Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…

  3. #3
    Council Member Stratiotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Missouri
    Posts
    94

    Default

    I have to agree that a nuclear Iran is a scarey thought but I'm not sure what we can do about it.

    Even if we stop them with force now, it will only drive them to want them more and probably convince other nations to do the same before the US has a chance to try and stop them with force.

    If we resort to force with the attitude that we can ignore international law when we're sufficiently scared, then isn't that playing into the very thinking we would accuse them of?

    We cannot stop others from gaining such weapons indefinitely. Anything we do to stop it now will only delay the inevitable. In light of that, I think it would be better to figure out how we are going to deal with the inevitable sooner than later.
    Mark
    Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDilegge
    Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…
    While I concur that a nuclear Iran is scary, it is not any scarier than loose nukes in the former Soviet Union that no one wants to account for, or a nuclear Pakistan in the absence of Musharraf. We should not forget that no matter how crazy Ahmadinejad may appear, he won a popular election that was relatively free.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default "Relatively free"?

    When a small group of ayatollahs decides who may not run in an election there is nothing free about it. The current president was permitted to run because the Ayatollahs agreed with his positions. They have excluded all "reformers" from the last two elections.

    I tend to doubt the report of missing suitcase nukes simply because if some one like al Qaeda had them they would have used them by now.

    Iran has stated its intentions and it would be a mistake not to believe them. Even the guy who lost to the current president has said that Iran could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel, but Israel could not. We are dealing with people with a death cult mentality in Iran and permitting them to have nuclear weapons is not acceptable. If Pakistan ever gets leadership as irresponsible as that in Iran we will have to deal with them accordingly.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default

    I must have been mistaken in my assumption that due to the fact that women can vote and hold office, and that the former president, Mohammad Khatami, was touted as a reformer that Iran was relatively free. In relation to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen (all US friends in the GWOT), the Iranians are down right progressive!

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Iran's "reformers"

    What Khatami and the rest of the reformers found was that they had about as much legislative power a student council does in effecting school policy. Even that was too much for the ayatollahs and almost all of them were excluding from running for reelection. Right now Iraq and possibly post Syrian Lebanon are the only function democracies in Muslim middle east. Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are taking baby steps in the direction of democracy but have a long way to go. But at least they are not threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

    The current government cannot be described as representative of the will of the Iranians when people who disagree with the death cult supporting ayatollahs are excluded from the process.

    There is strong evidence that Iran is not only supporting anti US terrorist but is harboring at least one of the terrorist responsible for killing Americans in Lebanon.

  8. #8
    Council Member Stu-6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Iranian elections are more show than anything, real power is held by the religious authorities. That is why I never understand people getting all up set when the Iranian President makes crazy statements; so what, the guy is on par with the Queen of England.

    I tend to doubt the Iranian political structure could survive a nuclear exchange with the Israelis. Not only do the Israelis have many more weapons and better delivery systems than Iran is likely to produce in the next 15 years but the Iranian government has too many internal problems to survive such an action. Frankly we could have made a lot of progress towards deteriorating the extremist in the Iranian government had we handled them a little smarter over the last few years.

    In the end the Israelis have shown they can take care of themselves. Of course I am an American so I don’t feel the need to worry about Israeli security; I never understood why some Americans are so considered with the security of Israel, I hope their not so naive as to think Israel will return the favor.

  9. #9
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Iran: Consequences of a War

    13 Feb Reuters - Study: Thousands would die if U.S. attacked Iran

    Thousands of military personnel and hundreds of civilians would be killed if the United States launched an air strike on Iran to prevent it developing nuclear arms, a British think tank said in a report released on Monday.

    The report by the independent Oxford Research Group said any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack on a range of facilities including urban areas that would catch many Iranians unprotected.
    The report by Oxford Research Group - Iran: Consequences of a War


    This briefing paper, written by our Global Security Consultant, Professor Paul Rogers, provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive.

    An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further.

    Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

    Contents:

    1. Executive Summary
    2. Introduction
    3. The US Context
    4. The Israeli Factor
    5. The Iranian Context
    6. Current Circumstances in Iran
    7. The Nature of US Military Action
    8. Pre-empting Iranian Responses
    9. Casualties
    10. Iranian Responses
    11. Wider Responses
    12. Israeli Military Action
    13. Conclusion

  10. #10
    Council Member Stratiotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Missouri
    Posts
    94

    Default

    On another BB I watch, someone linked a news report that indicated there were a good number of Russian advisors at the plant and there were concerns that an air strike could be problematic if any of them were killed/injured.

    I don't think that's a good reason in itself to hold off - I would not do it for other reasons but if you are of the persuasion that it will save more lives in the long run and that advisors are there despite warnings.....
    Mark
    Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default The Threat from Iran's WMD and Missile Programs

    A detailed (223 pages) backgrounder and assessment from CSIS: A Nuclear Iran? The Threat from Iran's WMD and Missile Programs
    There is a long chain of indicators that Iran is proliferating. Iran’s missile development problems only make sense if they are equipped with CBRN warheads. There have been numerous confirmed disclosures of suspect Iranian activity. Iranian nuclear program has been under intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years, and the IAEA reports disclose a pattern of activity that makes little sense unless it is tied to a nuclear weapons program.

    Yet, the data on Iranian nuclear weapons efforts remain uncertain. The summary reporting by the IAEA has not stated that there is decisive evidence that Iran is seeking such weapons, although the detailed disclosures made in IAEA reporting since 2002, do strongly indicate that it is likely that Iran is continuing to covertly seek nuclear technology. Neither the US nor its European allies have as yet released detailed white papers on their intelligence analysis of Iranian efforts, and there have been several press reports that US intelligence feels that its knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program is less than adequate to make the case for where, when, and how the Iranians will acquire a nuclear weapon.

    Iran does have the right to acquire a full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty (NPT), and the Iranian government has been able to find ways to justify all of its activities to date as research, related to nuclear power, minor mistakes, or the result of importing contaminated equipment. It has claimed that its concealed and secret efforts are the result of its fears that the US or Israel might attack what it claims are legitimate activities.

    In fact, Iran may have advanced to the point where it can covertly develop nuclear weapons even if it agrees to the terms proposed by the EU3 and Russia, and appears to comply with IAEA inspection. As the UN’s experience in Iraq has shown all too clearly, there are severe limits to even the most advanced inspection regime. Iran might well be able to carry out a covert research and development effort, make major advances in weapons development, and improve its ability to produce fissile material. Iran might well acquire a “break out” capability to suddenly make weapons or be able to produce small numbers of weapons without detection.

    At the same time, it is hard to discuss the case against Iran without raising questions about the mistakes the US and the UK made in characterizing Iraq’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The US in particular, has problems in convincing the international community that Iran is a grave threat to global security. Credibility is a precious commodity, and one that can sometimes be worth more than gold.

    The problems in addressing Iran’s capabilities go beyond the ability to determine the facts. Since 2002, the Bush Administration and EU3 have consistently argued that the Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are real and that they must be stopped. The ability of the US, the IAEA, and the EU3 to halt the Iranian nuclear program is complicated, however, by the mistakes that the US and Britain made in dealing with Iraq

    It is also impossible to deny the fact that Iran is being judged by a different standard because its regime is associated with terrorism, efforts to export its Shi’ite revolution, and reckless political rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with a “dual standard.” Nations that present exceptional risks require exceptional treatment. The fact remains, however, that Iran was under missile and chemical attack from Iraq, and seems to have revived its nuclear programs at a time that Iraq was already involved in a major effort to acquire biological and nuclear weapons. Iran has major neighbors -- India, Israel, and Pakistan -- that have already proliferated. It must deal with the presence of two outside nuclear powers: Russia near its northern border and the US in the Gulf.

    The situation is further confused by the fact there is an increasingly thin line between the technology needed to create a comprehensive nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear power generation and dual use technology that can be used to covertly develop nuclear weapons. A nation can be both excused and accused for the same actions. This can make it almost as difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively prove Iran’s guilt as its innocence, particularly if its programs consist of a large number of small, dispersed efforts, and larger “dual-use” facilities.

    Some efforts at proliferation have been called a “bomb in the basement” – programs to create a convincing picture that a nation has a weapon without any open testing or formal declaration. Iran seems to be trying to develop a “bomb in a fog;” to keep its efforts both covert and confusing enough so that there will be no conclusive evidence that will catalyze the UN into cohesive and meaningful action or justify a US response. Such a strategy must be made more overt in the long-run if it is to make Iran a credible nuclear power, but the long-run can easily stretch out for years; Iran can break up its efforts into smaller, research oriented programs or pause them; focus on dual-use nuclear efforts with a plausible rational; permit even intrusive inspection; and still move forward.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDilegge View Post
    Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…
    I see Ahmadinejad as an Iranian populist, and thus, someone who says what he thinks his people want to hear.

    Question - I wonder what the average Iranian's perception was of President Bush after his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech? I wonder how closely these perceptions match up to Americans perceptions of Ahmadinejad after he made disparaging remarks about the US and Bush.

  13. #13
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off

    25 September Reuters - Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off by Dan Williams.

    In October 1973, with its forces battling to repel invasions by Egypt and Syria, Israel did what had previously been unthinkable: It briefly wheeled its nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles out of their secret silos.

    That, historians believe, was picked up by U.S. spy satellites and stirred up fears in Washington of a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs. Message received, an urgent American shipment of conventional arms to Israel was quick to follow, and helped turn the war.

    With Israel's current arch-foe Iran seen gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a few years, and preventive military options limited, some experts now anticipate another "lifting of the veil" on the assumed Israeli atomic arsenal.

    Were that to happen, experts say, the objective would be to establish a more open military deterrence vis-a-vis Iran and perhaps win Israel's nuclear option formal legitimacy abroad...

  14. #14
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft

    27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.

    In another indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran, a Pentagon unit has drafted a report charging that U.S. international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime.

    The report, a draft of which McClatchy News Service obtained this week, appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.

    McClatchy obtained a copy of the report this week, and it also has circulated on Capitol Hill. It accuses the Voice of America's Persian TV service and Radio Farda, a U.S. government Farsi-language broadcast, of taking a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and not giving adequate time to government critics.

    U.S. broadcasting officials and others who have read the report said it's riddled with errors.

    They also see it as a thinly veiled attack on the independence of U.S. international broadcasting, which by law is supposed to represent a balanced view of the United States and provide objective news. ''The author of this report is as qualified to write a report on programming to Iran as I would be to write a report covering the operations of the 101st Airborne Division,'' Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said in a statement on Tuesday.

    Larry Hart, a spokesman for the board, which oversees U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, said that the radio and TV operations have covered Iran's human rights abuses extensively and have featured appearances by dissidents -- who sometimes telephoned from Iranian jails.

    Surveys have shown that Radio Farda is the most-listened-to international radio broadcast into Iran, Hart said...

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    It's a month old, but here's the Staff Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, dated 23 Aug 06:

    Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat
    ...Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte provided his assessment in his 2006 Annual Threat Report that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. America's intelligence agencies have also assessed the following about the Iranian threat:

    • Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Tehran probably has not yet produced or acquired the fissile material (weapons-grade nuclear fuel) needed to produce a nuclear weapon; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has stated that Iran will not be “in a position to have a nuclear weapon” until “sometime between the beginning of the next decade and the middle of the next decade”.

    • Iran likely has an offensive chemical weapons research and development capability.

    • Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.

    • Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. The U.S. Intelligence Community has raised the concern that Tehran may integrate nuclear weapons into its ballistic missiles.

    • Iran provides funding, training, weapons, rockets, and other material support to terrorist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and elsewhere.

    • Elements of the Iranian national security apparatus are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SWJED View Post
    27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.
    Here is Radio Farda, which is essentially a branch of RFE/RL's Iran section. The VOA Farsi program is unrelated, although still government sponsored.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  2. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM
  3. Gurkha beheads Taliban...
    By Rifleman in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 02:00 AM
  4. War is War
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  5. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •